A Review of the God Delusion (Part 8)

In the fifth chapter of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins attempts to find a naturalistic explanation for the existence of religion. How did it evolve? Why is it still around? He struggles to find an explanation, but does not deal with the true one that is set forth in the Scriptures.

He admits his problem at the outset: “Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant. And Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates waste. Nature is a miserly accountant…” (190). In other words, religion is something that wastes people’s time and resources; so (theoretically), it should have never become the influential force it is today. Having become what it is, however, it should have disappeared. He later explains that by wasteful, he is referring to all the property that religion owns and all the Cathedrals that have been constructed.

One problem that Dawkins has is lumping all religions together. He cites comedienne Cathy Ladman, who quipped: “All religions are the same: religion is basically guilt, with different holidays” (295). Most religions deal with guilt because people realize that they have intentionally done wrong things, which makes them feel guilty. They sense a need to be forgiven for what they have done. So, religions do have that feature in common, but it is false that they are all the same just because they have one or more similarities.

Furthermore, Christianity (as taught in the New Testament) does not have any annual holidays, such as the Passover and Hannukah, which Jews observe, or Ramadan, a holy month for Muslims. But what about Christmas and Easter? A search of the New Testament will not find any passage authorizing an annual day to celebrate Christ’s birth. In fact, we do not know the dates on which Jesus was born or died. God gave no commandment for annual events for disciples of Jesus to observe. They are, instead, to meet each Lord’s day for worship (Acts 20:7; cf. 1 Cor. 11:17-29; 16:1-2).

More will be said about the distinctiveness of Christianity later, but first consider another bad argument. Dawkins cites George Bernard Shaw as taking issue with the value of religion: “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one” (294). This claim cannot stand the light of day. How does Shaw know that a drunken man is happier than a sober one—because he smiles, is friendly to everyone, and sings, “Get Me to the Church on Time”? (Shaw did not write the song, of course.)

Some drunks are not very happy. They get into knife fights at taverns, thus requiring the police to be summoned. Some resist arrest, also. Some awaken the next day with bruises and broken bones, they had so much fun. Drunks are not happier than sober men; they are just mindless and sometimes senseless.

Drunks need an aid to achieve their “happiness,” while a Christian can be happy without any liquid assistance. Paul said that he had learned to be content in whatever state he was in—and that included poverty (Phil. 4:11). Whatever “happiness” a drunk achieves is gone when he wakes up. He will then begin all over again to induce intoxication. The Christian is constantly contented. And he will not face what the drunkard does:

Who has woe? Who has sorrow?
Who has contentions? Who has complaints?
Who has wounds without cause?
Who has redness of eyes?
Those who linger long at wine,
Those who go in search of mixed wine.
Proverbs 23:29-30

A Byproduct

Dawkins’ explanation for religion is to suggest that it came into being as the byproduct of something else (201). He theorizes the “something else” is that children are taught to trust their parents at a young age. He says: “Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them” (205). Thus, their minds are programmed in such a way that when they hear of a god, they will place their trust in that deity. He cited some bizarre beliefs held in various parts of the world as evidence (207).

While it is true that children are generally taught to trust their parents and other adults in society, such an explanation cannot explain Christianity, which does not ask people to trust without evidence. Men cannot prophecy hundreds of years in advance specific details that they can in no way bring about themselves. They do not have wisdom enough to explain how things came to be, how they ought to live, or what to expect after death. Furthermore, only God can do actual miracles that verify the teachings the Bible sets forth.

Dawkins acts as though only ignorant, gullible people believe in Christianity (or any religion), which is an insult to all who lived before him. Nicodemus (and others) had drawn a conclusion concerning Jesus: “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with Him” (John 3:2).

Dawkins thinks he has an answer to this point. He quotes Arthur C. Clarke’s Third Law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” For example, natives on an island without electricity would be dumbfounded by a small box that glowed with light and emitted curious noises (235). If he is referring to a radio or a television, it probably would seem like a miracle to those living in primitive conditions. However, the Bible has an answer to that scenario.

In Acts 8, Philip preached in Samaria, where a sorcerer named Simon lived. The people marveled over the illusions and tricks he was able to do. He claimed to be someone great (v. 9), but then Philip came, preaching and working miracles. Not only did the Samaritans obey the gospel, so did Simon. He knew the difference between what he had been doing and a genuine miracle (Acts 8:10-13). People may be fooled for a time, as those in Samaria were by Simon, but when they see the genuine power of God, they can tell the difference.

Isn’t it interesting that the Bible has answers for all the theories of skeptics and atheists? Not only are the explanations valid; they were provided centuries before Darwin was born and intellectuals such as Dawkins ever graced us with their presence.

Luther and Logic

Dawkins brings up statements made about reason. He does not explain how Luther defines reason or what the context of these statements were. We will acknowledge that all of us owe a great deal to Martin Luther—especially as he challenged the papacy. He is not, however, the Savior or even one of the apostles. In other words, he is not an infallible human being or theologian. Christians disagree with him on a number of issues. Here are a few sentences cited by Dawkins.

Reason is the greatest enemy faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not, it struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.

Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.

Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.

One can only imagine why Luther made these statements; certainly, he himself used logic when it came to understanding and explaining the Scriptures. That’s why a context might prove helpful here. Dawkins does not provide it, nor does he even reference where Luther spoke or wrote these words.

God personally invited His people, Israel. to reason with Him (Isa. 1:18). In the New Testament, Paul advised Christians: “Test all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21-22). In fact, it was in Thessalonica that Paul “reasoned with them from the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2). Paul did likewise in Corinth (Acts 18:1-4). He also reasoned with the Jews in Ephesus (Acts 18:19). Paul never preached a sermon, in which he said, “Forget reason; just believe.”

In Matthew 21:25, Jesus’ detractors knew He had put them on the horns of a dilemma; they could not answer either alternative without getting themselves in trouble. Therefore, they refused to answer. The enemies of Christianity are the ones who act out of emotion rather than logic. Even Pilate asked the Jews what evil Jesus had done to merit crucifixion (Matt. 27:23). When Pilate said he was innocent of Jesus’ blood (v. 24), the crowd made one of the most irrational statements of all time: “His blood be upon us and on our children” (v. 25). Christianity incorporates logic and reason as faithful allies.

What We Wish to See

Another Root of Religion is, as Lionel Tiger put it: “There is a tendency for humans consciously to see what they wish to see” (218). Dawkins even quotes Shakespeare’s Henry IV saying to his son: “Thy wish was father, Harry, to that thought” (221). Obviously, both of these are possible, but neither statement proves that religion is merely wishful thinking. Did Abraham just desire to leave Ur of the Chaldees? Had Noah always wanted to build an ark? Did Jesus leave heaven because He had always desired to be a martyr? Then why did He pray for the cup to pass from Him?

Wouldn’t this type of thinking also need to conclude: “People really want to be moral; so they invented Christianity to fulfill that wish”? Hah! If people really want to be moral why is there so much lying, so many sexual sins, and so much murder?

Oscar Wilde is quoted as saying: “Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived.” No. Spiritual truth was completed and recorded almost 2,000 years ago. Jesus taught that anyone who continued in His Word would know it (John 8:31-32). It has not changed; it remains objective truth. People may try to twist and pervert it, but it remains available to all.

Cargo Cults

So, mankind is taught obedience as a child, and when we mature, we often fall sway to trusting in religion as a force of habit. As evidence of this point, Dawkins points to the cargo cults in the South Pacific. One example of these involves a “Messiah”-type figure named John Frum. Allegedly, he lived in Vanuatu around 1940, made prophecies, and persuaded the natives not to listen to missionaries. He returned to his ancestors, but promised to return someday (a second coming) with a bountiful cargo (236). Other places had similar promises of a great cargo one day coming for “the faithful.”

And this is supposed to parallel Christianity? Were there more than 50 prophecies of John Frum’s first coming? Did he heal people on the island of their illnesses, as Paul did on Malta? Why did people believe what he promised? The current status is reported by Wikipedia:

Belief in John Frum is in decline, however; as of 2022, there are fewer than 500 practitioners. Currently, only the village of Lamakara is faithful to the John Frum faith on the island of Tanna. The rest of the island has been mostly converted by Christian missionaries based in Sulphur Bay.

All that Dawkins has proved is that some religions are made up and that people believe them even if they have no validity to them. These stories do not negate truth.